{"id":107078,"date":"2008-05-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-30T11:46:53","modified_gmt":"2016-10-30T06:16:53","slug":"thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"Thankamani.P.O. vs Radhamani.P.O. on 27 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Thankamani.P.O. vs Radhamani.P.O. on 27 May, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRP.No. 544 of 2008(C)\n\n\n1. THANKAMANI.P.O., D\/O.ANANDAN NAIR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. RADHAMANI.P.O., D\/O.ANANDAN NAIR,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SECRETARY,\n\n3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,\n\n4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\n\n Dated :27\/05\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n         THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.\n\n  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n        R.P.544\/2008 in WP(C).12835\/2008-C\n\n  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n       Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008.\n\n                    O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
1.This review petition is filed by the fourth<\/p>\n
 respondent in WP(C).12835\/2008. She and the writ<\/p>\n
 petitioner are sisters. They are parties to a<\/p>\n
 partition  suit   pending  before  the   Munsiff’s<\/p>\n
 Court, Taliparamba. It appears that there is a<\/p>\n
 building   in  the  common   property.  The   said<\/p>\n
 building is numbered by the Sreekandapuram Grama<\/p>\n
 Panchayat as SP XII 321A. The writ petitioner<\/p>\n
 applied for grant of electricity supply to that<\/p>\n
 building on the basis of possession certificate<\/p>\n
 and moved this Court alleging non-consideration<\/p>\n
 of that application. Having regard to the nature<\/p>\n
 of the Electricity Laws, the Telegraphs Act and<\/p>\n
 the  other   attendant  provisions  of  law   that<\/p>\n
 governs the situation, directions were issued as<\/p>\n
RP544\/2008              -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
  per    judgment  dated    11-4-2008  requiring the<\/p>\n
  Electricity Board authorities to take action in<\/p>\n
  accordance   with  law.      Notice to  the  fourth<\/p>\n
  respondent     therein,      namely,  the    review<\/p>\n
  petitioner,   was  dispensed     with because, the<\/p>\n
  directions issued as per that judgment would not,<\/p>\n
  in any manner, affect the right of the review<\/p>\n
  petitioner to raise objections to the drawal of<\/p>\n
  the line.     This is because, in terms of the<\/p>\n
  Electricity Act, if there is obstruction to the<\/p>\n
  drawal of the line, the Electricity authority has<\/p>\n
  to move the District Magistrate or the Additional<\/p>\n
  District Magistrate, as the case may be, and<\/p>\n
  apply for removal of obstruction and in such<\/p>\n
  event, the review petitioner (fourth respondent<\/p>\n
  in the writ petition) would be entitled to an<\/p>\n
  opportunity of being heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.Be that as it may, this review petition is filed<\/p>\n
  alleging that the assertion in the writ petition<\/p>\n
  that the writ petitioner is residing in that<\/p>\n
  building for the last so many years is a wrong<\/p>\n
RP544\/2008             -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
  statement and that the judgment is likely to be<\/p>\n
  misunderstood by the Board authorities and there<\/p>\n
  may    be forcible drawal    of  the  line  without<\/p>\n
  abiding by the Rules. It is also pointed out that<\/p>\n
  Ext.P2 on the strength of which the possession of<\/p>\n
  the writ petitioner was sought to be proved,<\/p>\n
  could not be acted upon since even in the written<\/p>\n
  statement   before the     civil court  (Annexure-5<\/p>\n
  along    with the  review     petition),  the  writ<\/p>\n
  petitioner is shown to have taken the stand that<\/p>\n
  she    was  only  constructing   the   building in<\/p>\n
  question even in 2005.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.Ext.P2 is only an ownership certificate issued<\/p>\n
  showing the writ petitioner as the owner of the<\/p>\n
  building   situated  therein,    according  to the<\/p>\n
  assessment register for the years 1997-98 to<\/p>\n
  2006-07.   While it is pointed out by the learned<\/p>\n
  counsel   for  the  review    petitioner  that the<\/p>\n
  addition of the letter `A’ along with the number<\/p>\n
  of the house shows that the building could be a<\/p>\n
  new construction, Ext.P2 cannot be taken to be<\/p>\n
RP544\/2008             -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
  issued    to  evidence    that the building   was<\/p>\n
  constructed in 1997-98. I say so because, all<\/p>\n
  that the said certificate shows is that the writ<\/p>\n
  petitioner is shown to be the owner of that<\/p>\n
  building in a register which pertains to 1997-<\/p>\n
  2007. That is for two quinquennials. All that it<\/p>\n
  refers is to the period for which the register is<\/p>\n
  maintained. It does not, by itself, evidence the<\/p>\n
  date of construction. I make this clarification<\/p>\n
  because, the judgment sought to be reviewed is<\/p>\n
  never intended to affect, in any manner, the<\/p>\n
  rival contentions of the parties before the civil<\/p>\n
  Court. It has also to be remembered that the<\/p>\n
  Electricity Board has necessarily to take action<\/p>\n
  for    removal of  obstruction in  terms  of  the<\/p>\n
  Electricity Act, having regard to the stand of<\/p>\n
  the review petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.Having heard learned counsel for parties, it also<\/p>\n
  needs to be clarified that even the drawal of<\/p>\n
  line, if at all permitted, shall also be subject<\/p>\n
  to the result of the civil suit between the<\/p>\n
RP544\/2008             -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
  parties and this judgment will not stand in the<\/p>\n
  way of the civil court deciding the equities and<\/p>\n
  other    matters in   the    partition  suit. The<\/p>\n
  aforesaid clarifications will satisfy the purpose<\/p>\n
  of the review petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.Before parting with this case, it needs to be<\/p>\n
  noticed that the writ petitioner appears to have,<\/p>\n
  even in his written statement, taken the stand<\/p>\n
  that    the properties    are common.  The  review<\/p>\n
  petitioner and the writ petitioner are sisters.<\/p>\n
  It is stated by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
  review petitioner that his client was away in<\/p>\n
  Tamil Nadu for quite some time and that what was<\/p>\n
  there in the common property is the old family<\/p>\n
  house. Family ties are not built in concrete and<\/p>\n
  rubble.    This is a fit case where the parties,<\/p>\n
  through the aid and advice of their wise counsel,<\/p>\n
  negotiate and settle the suit and end up amicably<\/p>\n
  so that they could enjoy the love and affection<\/p>\n
  they    had under the    guiding  lights of  their<\/p>\n
  parents when they lived in the old family house.<\/p>\n
RP544\/2008            -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
  The learned Munsiff will, therefore, make an<\/p>\n
  endeavour to ascertain whether the partition suit<\/p>\n
  between  the  parties   could be  considered  for<\/p>\n
  amicable settlement at the earliest. I call upon<\/p>\n
  the parties also to reasonably co-operative and<\/p>\n
  end a litigation.\n<\/p>\n
  With the aforesaid clarifications, this review<\/p>\n
  petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                       THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
\n                                 JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Sha\/020608<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Thankamani.P.O. vs Radhamani.P.O. on 27 May, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RP.No. 544 of 2008(C) 1. THANKAMANI.P.O., D\/O.ANANDAN NAIR, … Petitioner Vs 1. RADHAMANI.P.O., D\/O.ANANDAN NAIR, … Respondent 2. THE SECRETARY, 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, For Petitioner :SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN For Respondent : No Appearance The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThankamani.P.O. vs Radhamani.P.O. on 27 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thankamani.P.O. vs Radhamani.P.O. on 27 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-30T06:16:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thankamani.P.O. vs Radhamani.P.O. on 27 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-30T06:16:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":870,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008\",\"name\":\"Thankamani.P.O. vs Radhamani.P.O. on 27 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-30T06:16:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thankamani.P.O. vs Radhamani.P.O. on 27 May, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Thankamani.P.O. vs Radhamani.P.O. on 27 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thankamani.P.O. vs Radhamani.P.O. on 27 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-30T06:16:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thankamani.P.O. vs Radhamani.P.O. on 27 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-30T06:16:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008"},"wordCount":870,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008","name":"Thankamani.P.O. vs Radhamani.P.O. on 27 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-30T06:16:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamani-p-o-vs-radhamani-p-o-on-27-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thankamani.P.O. vs Radhamani.P.O. on 27 May, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107078","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107078"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107078\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}